User talk:Thatopshotta

My Conclusions

Perspective is not only from Trinidad. I have interviewed numerous people of different ethnic origins and cultures, and we have all come to this point. I would love for this article to include a world-wide view, perhaps include various other cultural histories of this dish. I think the article provides a clear cut explanation of how the two dishes are in fact not the same.

In addition, this article does not fit in the curry article since it is not a curry dish. It is a chicken dish. Not only that, it has many various historical facts of the development of this dish in other cultures. (I am currently working on increasing this to even more cultures, can use your help!). Your point of the "World View" of referring to the same thing differently, is not appropriate for this article. The two dishes are not the same, and therefore should not be referred to by the same name. For instance, is coke and pepsi the same? No, but many people around the world call them both "black soda".

I appreciate your views and concerns, but I hope you can see this more objectively. Thank you for your input. --Thatopshotta

Hello again! You may want to read one of the specific policies I posted below Wikipedia:Attribution. Specifically the section on No original research. Information from interviews are not considered a reliable source, especially ones not attributed to any particular person or persons.

The introduction to curry states "Curry is the English description of any of a general variety of spiced dishes..." thus the definition of the scope of the article will include any dish that is spiced with any of the combinations of ingredients that anyone in the World refers to as curry. And therefore the content here does fit within that article.

Yes, it is a chicken dish. Just like "lamb curry", "curried lamb" and "curry lamb" are lamb dishes. They are al also curry dishes.

Your history section basically states that the "curry chicken" that you refer to is a derivation of Indian curried chicken. So this is a regional peculiarity to Trinidad and Tobago, and as I explained earlier, we need to present a worldwide view. What you see as the be all and end all definition of "curry chicken" is know differently in other parts of the World. In my previous edit I provided 3 examples. Further more your section "Trinidad and Tobago History" has no references at all.

You have redirected chicken curry to curry chicken in that action you have shown that your intent was to make the subject of this article both.

I've never heard the term "black soda" but that aside your point is a strawman argument. A generic term for two brands of soda is not the same as regional differences in the use of a term. In fact if we take your example, some refer to all "sodas" as "coke", others call them "soda", others call them "fizzy drinks". In different regions, different terms are used in different ways. What this article needs to do is respect all the different uses, make reference to them and disambiguate them in an unbiased way. That way anyone who visits the article will get the full picture and not think that the article is a "load of rubbish" because it says something that in their experience is completely unfamiliar. --Monotonehell 06:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so what do you propose? I will delete the naming section, but this article definitely cant fit in the curry article. I will concur that the chicken curry and curry chicken can/and does refer to the same thing, although, their is a difference in the cookery style that does offer a reasonable explanation of why the two cultures name the dish differently. Thatopshotta 03:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Thatopshotta[reply]

I propose what I proposed initially; that the article have a global perspective. That is, by all means, mention that in Trinidad and Tobago the term "curry chicken" is used and means XYZ... But also mention that in other parts of the world the term is used in different ways and for different things. Much like the last edit I performed, where I cited 3 different versions of the dish from three different regional perspectives. Have a look at the article jam for an example of what I mean. It states the regional differences in the use of terms, cites books for references and allows a reader to gain a more global perspective that if the article refused to acknowledge that in the USA most people would use the term "jelly" to refer to spreadable fruit condiments. --Monotonehell 10:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

(restored blanked discussion) We seem to be at loggerheads on this article Curry chicken. My problems with the text that you keep reverting to, after I try to make sense of it (and I have tried a few different ways to reach a compromise here) are;

Your version of this article seems to come only from the perspective of Trinidad (or similar). Wikipedia is a Worldwide encyclopedia and should include, as much as possible, a Worldwide view. From your point of view you think you are 100% correct, but you must respect that in other parts of the World people refer to the same thing differently. In this respect an editor should never get hung up on one point of view.

In my part of the World (Australia) both the pictured items you have added would be called "Chicken curry" or possibly "curried chicken". "Curry chicken" is a term that would never be used. But I'm aware that in other parts of the World that term is used.

The section:

"Curry chicken is also sometimes referred to as chicken curry. However there is a slight difference between curry chicken and chicken curry, even though both dishes include curry and chicken!

In the dish curry chicken, a mixture of spices including the main spice curry is added to the main item of the dish, chicken. Thus, it is said in many languages that one "Curries the Chicken!" Therefore this dish is named curry chicken (curry describing the chicken). Other chicken dishes prepared in a similar style include: sweet-and-sour chicken, lemon chicken, ambila chicken, ginger chicken, curry shrimp, curry allu(potato), curry goat, curry duck, etc.

In the dish chicken curry, the main item -curry- along with other spices is blended to create a sauce. Chicken pieces is then added to this sauce to enrich the dish. Therefore this dish is named chicken curry (chicken describing the curry). Other curry dishes include: allu(potato) curry, shrimp curry, etc."

-Is very hard to follow, and perhaps part of our trouble is I don't understand what you're trying to say. I thought my last edit took your points of view and incorporated them with other points of view I'm aware of. I took every point you had and incorporated them into a Worldwide view, with examples from a few different places.

Again, if one "curries the chicken" then, depending on where one is, one would end up with either "chicken curry", "curried chicken" or "curry chicken". This proves nothing.

(Also a minor point: The use of exclamation points is not encouraged in encyclopedia prose)

The section "Ultimate Curry Chicken Recipe" is very POV. You're saying that this is the only way to make it. Which as I showed with my last edit, is not true. There are almost as many different ways to make curry chicken/chicken curry as there are cooks in this World.

The links you provide are not appropriate for Wikipedia, blogs aren't appropriate, nor are non-unique commercial sites.

The major point to realise here is that you are making assertions based on your own experience. Which is not wrong, but is only one point of view. It's analogous to an American asserting that "Color is spelled C O L O R" while an Englishman may assert that "Colour is spelt C O L O U R".

If you could re-read my last edit and then have a think about things, maybe we could come to an agreement on this. --Monotonehell 11:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from User:Monotonehell)

If you can read, you will see that it says "Some recipes of making curry chicken is provided", That recipe is the easiest, to come across, and one which I have been granted permission to use on the site. You certainly have the capability to go out and find a couple additional recipes on chicken curry or curry chicken, and add it to the website. Besides the point, the recipes is no the "purpose" of the website. The Pictures and explanations, are very clear in distinguishing chicken curry and curry chicken. I suggest you read the content of the article, because it seems you cannot realize the difference in cultures - hence the difference in the dish, is the reason for the difference in name.

The chicken curry is not "curried", and so this argument

'"Again, if one "curries the chicken" then, depending on where one is, one would end up with either "chicken curry", "curried chicken" or "curry chicken". This proves nothing.'

is not valid. The primary ingredient in chicken curry is the curry, chicken is then placed in the curry. You are not getting the point. I have distinguished chefs supported the content of the article. I have also received many positive feedbacks, who do realize the difference. These feedbacks come mainly from people in India, who realize why we call the dish Curry Chicken - because our dish is different!!.

Please stop the vandalism, or you will be reported, and account privileges stripped!!

-- User:Thatopshotta

Hello again, you may wish to review the policies and procedures of Wikipedia as you seem to be confused about how things work here. Firstly, deleting content on your own talk page is considered bad form. Secondly accusing editors of vandalism and having their "account priveleges stripped" for good faith edits is not on. I'm am trying to have a reasoned discussion here regarding our difference of opinion. If you cannot conduct yourself civilly then may I suggest that you not contribute to a community written encyclopedia where you agree "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." when you save an edit.

I now see that others have put the article up for deletion, so I will not edit the article further until that is resolved. (Also removing AfD (Articles for deletion) tags from articles as well as copyright issue tags from photographs is also not a good idea) Adding anonymous support comments to an AfD in the third person is something that will be spotted very quickly and will weaken your case. It's best to be upfront in all matters as these kind of actions will not benefit you at all.

I'm sorry that you're having such a bad initial experience here, if you want to contribute further to Wikipedia (and I encourage you to do so, the experience of people from all places on this Earth is valued) I suggest that you start off slowly, perhaps read a lot of policy first, have a look at how things work and the processes that occur. Then after a few months you will be in a better position to judge if content that you're intending to add will be accepted or not.

A good place to start is with the cornerstone policies:

Then you may want to move onto the Wikipedia:List of policies.

I wish you well with your future Wikipedi-ing! --Monotonehell 12:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Bakenshark.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bakenshark.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. –Henning Makholm 19:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update Thanks for your perseverance in warning/notifying me of every improper thing I do in the beginning of my time in wikipedia. The license for this image, has now been all cleared up. Thatopshotta 23:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Thatopshotta[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Indian Curry Chicken.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Indian Curry Chicken.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. –Henning Makholm 19:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update Again thank-you for notifying me. I personally don't think this image is the greatest. Looking for better one, although there have been some updates on the licensing. Thatopshotta 23:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Thatopshotta[reply]

AfD discussions

Please remember to sign your posts in discussions, which you did not at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curry chicken. Also, you "voted" twice, which is not appropriate. You should make your statement in a single comment, or put "Comment" in front of it. You spoke in the third person, which could be construed as misleading. If you contribute further to the discussion, please keep this in mind. Thanks. Leebo⁸⁶ 20:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reminding me. I started signing, although I was signing it all wrong also. I am now signing it proper. Thank you thank you. Thatopshotta 23:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Thatopshotta[reply]

Image:Bakenshark.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bakenshark.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thatopshotta, I realize that must be annoying to you, but copyright laws are very strict and WP has to follow them. Perhaps you can convince the author, Gary Gibson, to release the image under a GFDL or other free license? WP needs the author to agree to allow modification, redistribution, and use for any purpose, including commercial purposes. Wikipedia has a page at WP:COPYREQ that helps to explain how to go about requesting permission to use other people's work in Wikipedia. —RP88 07:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Finally, thank you for your explanation. Since I started using this site last week, I have been bugged by certain users, constantly, with no idea what I'm doing wrong, or at least how to fix it. Finally, for this one mistake, you have given me an explanation how to fix it. I appreciate it, big time. Thatopshotta 08:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Thatopshotta[reply]

Thank you for updating the image description page for Image:Bakenshark.jpg. I see that you have said that the reason the image is not replaceable is:

Looked everywhere for one. I found one other on the net, but it is an extremely small photo, not suitable for viewing. (http://static.flickr.com/32/59844402_388e8f49c1_t.jpg). This is the only picture of a Bake N Shark that can be found with permission

The first criterion of the Wikipedia fair-use policy says that in order for an image to qualify for fair use on Wikipedia, "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" (emphasis added). So, just because you cannot find a free image on the Internet doesn't mean that the image qualifies for fair use. In this case, I believe that it would be easy for a Wikipedia editor to buy one of these sandwiches, take a photo of it, and upload it under a free license. Therefore, a free equivalent could be created, which means that this image fails the first point of the fair-use policy and cannot be used here on Wikipedia.

So what can you do? Well, one idea would be to get the photographer of Image:Bakenshark.jpg to agree to license the photo under an acceptable free license, such as the GFDL or a Creative Commons license. It is very important to note that a license is only considered "free" here if it allows anyone to use or modify the image for any purpose, even for non-educational or commercial purposes. Some of the Creative Commons licenses prohibit commercial use or modification; these Creative Commons licenses are not considered free licenses on Wikipedia. As RP88 mentioned above, have a look at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for ideas about how to ask for permission. You've already asked for permission once, but the photographer only granted permission for the image to be used on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this is not good enough: Wikipedia's goal is to be an encyclopedia of free content that anyone can use for any purpose, so images here need to be usable outside Wikipedia, too.

Another idea would be to take a photo of this sandwich yourself, or to ask another Wikipedian to take a photo. Then the image could easily be released under a free license, and everything would be fine.

Please let me know if you need help or if you have any questions. (By the way, you might consider using the "Show preview" button when you make posts, so that you can correct little mistakes before they are saved. I got five "You have new messages" alerts in a row as you edited my talk page. :-) —Bkell (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, RP88 and Bkell. I don't know this owner of the picture personally, rather I emailed him for the permission to use. He specifically noted "use for that page". I googled like crazy for a picture of this Bake N Shark, but can not find a suitable replacement. I have put the word out to my people in Trinidad, to get a picture of it and email it to me. But knowing my people in Trinidad, they will all forget about this picture once they hit the Maracas Beach! lol Can't this picture be kept, until one such free license picture is found. Do they not have a "Picture Allowed/Valid until a free picture is found" type of tag? Thanks for your cooperation in adjusting to my level of new beeness. Also, if you can spread the word to find a legit picture to use, thats one way you can help . :) Thatopshotta 08:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Thatopshotta[reply]

It helps the flow of this conversation if we keep it in one place. Since everyone here seems to be also watching PUI, we should just make our comments there, instead of copying them and pasting them in two places (on PUI and on this talk page). —Bkell (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct licensing has been taken care of now. It should be all good now. Thank you for your continued perseverance in notifying me of my mistakes. "But story end, wire bend, monkey break his back for a piece of pomerack". Meaning, the BakeNshark image license should be good now. Thatopshotta 23:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Thatopshotta[reply]

Curry chicken

There's no reason why there should be separate articles for curry chicken and chicken curry, and I'm not even sure it's important to make the distinction between the two (you need to be able to find a source which makes this distinction). With regards to the article, it's a valid article, although it needs more sources, especially on its cultural penetration (e.g., it's remarkable that Jamaicans consider it one of their national dishes, and I have even had curry chicken served by someone from St. Thomas). Of course, it also needs a global perspective, but it definitely needs keeping. Guettarda 13:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I concur with everything. I am looking for more sources, and cultural perspectives to add on. Thatopshotta 23:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Thatopshotta[reply]

Nice article, hope you'll find time and space to add in that great Glaswegian dish Chicken tikka masala (well that's the rumour I prefer) and might even be interested in tidying up that article. Myself, must head off now to stew up some chicken with a jar of korma sauce :) ... dave souza, talk 21:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your user page question

Hi, it's Mr Pain in the bum again ;) I tend to keep my user page strictly on the topic of wikipedia so I haven't bothered to check on the guidelines for what you have on your user page but here is the guideline on the subject if you're interested. --Monotonehell 11:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for pointing that out. I have to admit I am learning a lot on wikipedia because of you. lol Thatopshotta 12:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Thatopshotta[reply]

the kalaripayatt image

Before shooting your mouth off on edit summaries, take a look at the history. I had tagged that image on feb 16th asking for permission. There was no response till 21st. Orphanbot retagged it... for another 7 days I guess. The editor saw this and was well aware of it and yet, didnt bother adding info about the source. Since you've taken it upon yourself to hunt for the permission, you better add it at the earliest. I'll be watching. Thanks. Sarvagnya 02:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I better" ? Your hostile actions serve no common good. Guess what, seems like the guy added the image again under another name. JasmineSimhalan-kalaripayatt-silambam.gif so I guess you can go chase that image down, and get it deleted. I have only decided to help out to try and get permission, since it is an illustrious image for this article and wikipedia. Having said that, the person is acting devious, and doesn't seem to want to help his/her own cause. Thatopshotta 07:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Thatopshotta[reply]

Seems that from all your constant bickering, pestering, and negative karma on this user and this image, if you had just followed the link the user had provided in the beginning to the image. And emailed the website administration, you would have found out that the website administration is in fact the user that uploaded the image. Maybe the user did not know what to do( since it is hard to figure out where all the information for procedures etc are on this wikipedia website) and just uploaded it again on another name. Next time, I suggest taking a more friendlier approach in questioning the user, especially offering help in choosing the documentation for the license and what to include on the image page. I hope you have learned something that will revolutionize your actions on wikipedia!. Thatopshotta 12:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Thatopshotta[reply]

...Maybe the user did not know what to do..." - The user clearly has/had enough wikipedia skills to atleast go to the talk page and ask for a clarification or even on the main page itself. And it is not my business to keep mailing some website for permission. If you have all the time and patience in the world, good for you. And next time, I suggest you get off your high horse before leaving edit summaries of the kind you left on that image that got deleted. Unless of course, you love to eat your own words as you did on that page. Sarvagnya 18:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep mailing some website, it took one email, to find out that the user was in fact the owner/author of the image, and website. That same time it took for you to do all the nonsense that you did, you could have emailed. Took me one email, to settle this whole thing. What did it take you to start all this commece? This conversation is over. Next time I hope you take a less negative approach.Thatopshotta 21:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Thatopshotta[reply]

Image

There is an image here Image:JasmineSimhalan-kalaripayatt-silambam.gif in which the deletion logs seem to indicate that you requested and received an e-mail on March 1st claiming that it is permissible to use it on Wikipedia and any of its downstream users. Have you forwarded this e-mail to the office per the instructions here? My understanding is that the copyright status of the image is ambiguous at best - the image needs to be tagged by someone on the OTRS team if it is to remain on Wikipedia. --HappyCamper 03:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...it seems as if you have been away from Wikipedia since March 6th. I will delete the image for now in deference to the first administrator who deleted it. Please drop me a note when you get back. Thanks. --HappyCamper 03:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have given up on fighting for that image. The author, can figure out what to do, if they want to keep it. I think I did email the administrator, so maybe it got deleted with good reason or something..... ThatopshottaThatopshotta

Alright, thanks for letting me know. --HappyCamper 23:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image: Bakenshark.jpg

I missed the permissions mention on the image. The image is now restored. Garion96 (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Bakenshark.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Bakenshark.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks in the article Perry Belcher

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at Perry Belcher. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an attack. After a personal encounter on this matter, I have committed research for numerous days on this matter. And have uncovered this extensive operation. I have posted references sourcing reputable sources for this also. I feel for the common good of society worldwide, that these type of business are uncovered and knowledge about these scams are known. This is the perfect place for documenting such scams. Again, this is not a personal attack. This is an attempt to document the extensive scam, so that public can be informed of such. Thatopshotta (talk)

Sorry. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a public address service to alert the public about scam artists. I doubt the subject meets notability requirements. See WP:BIO. The article is totally unbalanced. It's sole purpose is to "sound the alarm." Please see WP:NPOV. It is not apprpriate to incluse phrases like "I think" and telling the public how to call the FBI. Cheers, and happy editing. Dloh cierekim Deleted? 01:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it is an encyclopedia. I feel that this deserved its own article, as it includes extensive research on this topic and can not fit under Internet_fraud. Its purpose may seem to be to "sound the alarm", but it is to spread the knowledge. As this is the first draft of the article, I will be editing, and hoping others can edit and add as investigation continues. Furthermore, perhaps this discussion can resume in the talk page. As it that is the best place for all to express their point of views on the subject. Thatopshotta (talk)

Deleted anyway, I'm afraid. I checked with two other admins, and the consensus was to speedy delete. See the welcome links below for more guidleines. Cheers, and good luck. Dloh cierekim Deleted? 01:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links below. I have been away from the site, and forgot it is four tildas instead of 3. However, again it is not a personal attack. I have been investigating this for a while. Sources from the FBI, FDA, BBB are not good enough? I planned on further making the article more comprehensive as the editing process started. Since it was the initial article I wrote as much about the idea as I can, with the thought of going through the editing process. Perhaps, if the article was titled with the head company, Selmedica ? Would it be somewhat acceptable, atleast enough to go through the editing process here?

Also, [Credit_card_fraud] I feel that this information was too much to fit under here. But perhaps it can get a spot in there, atleast? I would appreciate your opinion! Thatopshotta (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Thatopshotta (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I doubt very much that his could be worked in. Any article would need to balance the good with the bad. In any event, the subject does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Asked DGG because he's an inclusionist. He felt like it needed to be deleted. Ask him. If anyone can guide you in creating an article, it's him. Dloh cierekim Deleted? 02:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read his view there, and I am awaiting his response. I understand the BLP concern. Thus I am proposing since the article was about the company, Selmedica, rather than the person, I am proposing if it be allowed to be renamed as Selmedica. As for notable sources, i.e. newspapers. I do not understand that. A newspaper article is someone else's opinion, can not be more notable than the BBB. The BBB is the most notable source on these types of issues.

What do you think about changing the name of article to Selmedica. And rewriting the beginning as fit. Then allowing it to go through the extensive editing process of wikipedia. ? Thatopshotta (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem is the content rather than the title. I don't think the subject is notable, just another scam, perhaps, but not encyclopedic. You might ask User:DGG though. He's more experienced than I am, he's sharper than I am, and he's an inclusionist. As a deletionist, I might not be able to see something helpful that would be clear to him. Wish I could be more helpful. Dloh cierekim Deleted? 03:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The content has been objectively investigated by the BBB. And it has a foot long wrap sheet with them. It has a wrap sheet with all the major credit card fraud investigative places. I felt that due to the type of scam, and that it has been going on for years, that placing it on wikipedia was the most appropriate place to inform the public. So as for notability, the sources are the utmost notable, as they are governmental investigative agencies, much more notable than a newspaper article :s. I understand the concern about it being a BLP violation. Therefore I will like to change it to Selmedica, the real subject of the article. However, I cant get the original article to start from! Is it possible for you to email me the original article, and I will work on it more for the next couple days. Then I can resubmit it under the name Selmedica. Then it can be reviewed if needed. ?Thatopshotta (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am an employee of Selmedica. The company is an FDA registered manufacturer and services over 100,000 customers successfully each year. We have not had one unsettled BBB complaint in 3 years the is in good standing with federal and local agencies. I am glad that Wikipedia saw this for what it is, a personal attack by one upset customer or more likly a competitor. Any real consumer complaints will be handled M-F 9am-5pm by calling our customer support line toll free at 800.805.1592 or simply email support@selmedica.com

Regarding Perry Belcher. I know Perry Belcher to be a good man, loving father and an exceptional entrepreneur.

It is so easy to cast stones at those who actually make things happen in the world the internet gives the coward a hidden media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwowser (talk • contribs) 05:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how all 20 or so sites, with a wide range of so called "products" all have disclaimers of how they are not FDA approved. Funny how the FDA themselves have issued numerous warnings against Selmedica products. Funny how the BBB has a wrap sheet a foot long. When speaking to people at the BBB, they have stated they have so many complaints against Selmedica, that they are not even issuing any more notices on them. Funny how I have not received an email answer from Selmedica at any of their emails (tried a total of 5, each stated that they respond within 24 hours), including the one you have given; and that the first 3 emails in the first couple days that I sent were very respectable emails before I found out about the scam. Funny how http://selmedica.com/main/contact/ at this site, you cant find that apparent customer support number. Funny how when I did call customer support, they told me one thing. Then the next day they tried to charge my credit card.

Regarding Perry Belcher, he very well can be all of those things. Together with running fraudulent business practices that exploit the weaknesses of consumers, to a tremendous extent. I have not lost anything, as I have realized my mistake early and took the proper precautions regarding my credit card against this company. However, my intent is to make sure my experience, as well as the information from the BBB and the FBI, and all other notable investigative authorities are made known to the public as best fit, before a consumer makes their decision. This type of predator marketing is common, but when it exploits the fragile consumers and their health, it is crossing the line. Thatopshotta (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new article

We are an encyclopedia, not a consumer magazine, nor do we engage in crusades, however justified. Everything must be sourced from edited sources that are customarily considered reliable, especially negative information. Only an article that makes its fairness evident will be accepted here, no matter how evil the subject. and, as far as effective rhetoric goes, its better that way also. Please see WP:RS for an explanation of what is usable. I rewrote the article as a first pass. Please try to document it further according to our standards. I have some experience with subjects of this nature, and I know what will work here. You do notwant to leave any opening for having the article deleted.DGG (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:BakenShark.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:BakenShark.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 23:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Perry Belcher for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Perry Belcher is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perry Belcher until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Curry Chicken Skewers.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Curry Chicken Skewers.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 07:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]